I am interested in the differences between these 2 programs. I want to enter my own cartridge specifications and pressures. Will either program allow me to do this? Is there a cartridge designer utility like in RCBSload included with either? What are the differences between AcculoadII and Calculoader? I can only afford one or the other right now. Any advice would help.

DOC

i own both programs. i have posted a number of comments, search under my user number, 9585, usually in reloading or big bore forums.

Accuload has a large database of reloading components, a huge cartridge selection, large range of powders, etc. allows you to enter your own cartridge dimensions, pressure rating, etc.
It might select up to 40 recommended poweders for a given cartridge. It then calculates the various internal, external ballistics over min to max charge wts. However, like a lot of programs, it selects the powders and charge wts., the user CANNOT enter these, so i find this limiting when doing "what if" type calculations on new cartridges or comparison of pressure vs published data. It also devotes a fair amount to datalogging your loads from your range data, etc.

Quickload also has a large database of components and cartridges, probably not as extensive as Accuload. The big plus for me is the ability to enter any combination of charge wt and powder or let it find the optimum for you. It might select 30 powders and finds the charge for 15% less max. pressure. It also allows you to modify or add new powders, their profiles and burning characteristcs (most of us do not have the knowledge to do this, but the capability is there). For instance, i wanted the xmp5744 Accurate powder for loading into large capacity cases without filler, but was not in the quickload database. So i did extensive search and research on the closest powders to it in terms of buring rate, etc, compared published results of pressure/velocity profiles and made up a xmp5744 that i can now use with the program.

Sorry for being long winded. In summary, think of quickload as an "engineer's" program interested in what-if scenarios and Accuload for the reloader wanting a starting point so he can get to the range to try out his loads.

Merry christmas

[ 12-26-2002, 20:17: Message edited by: steve505 ]

I have and like quickload. it has bugs, but if you take your fav loads, from the book, and run them in quickload, you'll soon find that win 748 is wrong, and little other things.

If it has a flaw, it's that it always has the expected pressure too high... which is better than too low...

go by what it says is MAX... and your judgement for min.

jeffe

I'm grateful for this thread.

I'll get the QuickLOAD. I have CalcuLoader, and while it has many nice features, I can't enter powders that "I" want to use. So, it looks like QuickLOAD instead of the upgrade to AccuLoader.

And by the way, I've been wanting to use XMP5744 too, for some cast-lead cowboy loads for my .444 Marlin. So, I'll go with the NECO program, I guess.

Russ

I have Accuload II. I have serious doubts about BOTH programs.

I'm working with a 7.82 Warbird. I had a friend who has Quickload, run numbers for me on it for H1000, among others. Many slow powders aren't there as is the case with Accuload. The 200g load gave a max of 102.5g for H1000. I loaded 96g and got 3570fps out of the load. Also got a bulged barrel. I was lucky. Accuload came up with maximum loads in the mid 80's with that propellant. Neither was correct. In contact with NECO we got some double-talk and some indications that with other calculations the maximum load should have been 94g yet that's not what the program shows to a user. Accuload is ultra conservative, and from my experience QuickLoad is too aggressive. Accuload advises there is a revision due soon which may make theirs a bit more accurate.

At this time I wouldn't buy either unless I was working only on cartridges that have solid data available. Even then these progams are nothing more than another tool in the arsenal. They aren't infallible and are truly no better than common sense and your own knowledge applied to load data which is available.

AccuLoad has some great features for a reloader that wants to calculate external ballistics, maintain loading data on computer, and requires a database for reference data. You can input location of articles or information on guns, loads, etc., and readily access its location. It's an extremely useful program for those wanting 'some' information on their cartridges, loads, etc., and to have everything in one place rather than scattered through several programs as I have now. I agree that Quickload is an 'engineer's' tool without many of the bells and whistles of Accuload. Both are inaccurate. That's the bottom line.

Quickload is only as good as the data you feed it when it comes to calculating loads for a wildcat. I have found with the 257DGR that it was a little slow on expected velocity and a little optimistic on the amount of powder that could be used. It is very usefull for finding starting loads with different powders.

Don, I am using Quickload for several years now and am pleased with it.For most of the commonly used calibers it is quite accurate.But not always! For example 243Win.with vihtavuory powders be verry carefull.
I did not blow up my rifle but had overpressures with a "moderate" load.As the program states:it is not a substitute for loading data.
Further you can "make" any caliber and bullet combination you want,and also add new data and even design a new caliber.Again:the results are just calculations and must be checked.
Hugh.

I recently got Accuload II and am lukewarm about it. As mentioned above, there is no "what if" feature but, then, I'm not an advanced handloader, so can live with that for the moment.

However, if the bullet length info is not in their database ,and I subsequently enter it myself into the appropriate field, it often will not compute the load. I e-mailed them with the concerns and received an update CD but the problems persist.

Anyone else have this problem?

Steve~
For grins try 200g and 240g Sierra's in both using H1000 in both programs for the Warbird. Use 125.3g water capacity.

I can't afford quickload right now, but could someone run this through there program for me?
I'm loading for my 10" BFR in 45-70. I've picked up some surplus powder, WC680 that is supposed to be similar to win680 or aa1680. The top load I tried was a win case, Fed 215M primer, 405 hard cast lead and 52gn WC680. I got 1751fps with no pressure signs and easy extraction. I'm just wondering what a guess on pressures might be? Maybe once I've recovered from Christmas, I'll get a copy. Or does anyone have a used one they'll sell me?

Here's a test for those with Quickload !

Input the following data:-

6mm remington
Barrel length 24"
Nosler 90gr ballistic tip
45.6gr Vihtovuouri N160
COL 2.915"

What is the estimated velocity and pressure?

for 10" 45-70, using aa1680 gives
1875fps#69.8kpsi
increasing case capacity, gives
1751fps@50.5k

In the quickload manual on limitations, straight wall cart such as 45-70 simulate to higher pressure and lower velocity than one's sees at the range.

6mm remington, 24", 90g nosler for N160 gives
3025fps@45.9kpsi

for 87g hornady, 52.7g N165 gives
3389fps@61.5kpsi and for increased case vol.
3110fps@44.6kpsi

as in all simulation tools, absolute accuracy of estimation is usually hard to get but relative accuracy once normalized to a known starting point, is usually good.

Think of these programs as tools, same as reloading manuals but with flexibility and what if capability. For instance, if one does not find the results of quicksim for a given powder accurate enough, then modify the burning characteristics, calibrate against a known load, then it should be able to extrapolate to similar cartridges, etc. such as a wildcat in development

Steve, thanks for running that. The BFR has a really long cylinder, 3". So there is about 1/2" of freebore before it hits the forcing cone. Maybe this is keeping the pressures down? Either way, I don't think I should increase the powder charge any. The primers aren't flat, and the cases either fall out of the gun when tipped up or comeout with a slight touch of the ejector rod. Recoil is fairly stiff though.

Steve505,

Well assuming that was with 45.6gr powder charge for the 6mm rem then this is the first time that Quickload has under estimated velocity. Actual velocity is 3170fps. I'm very glad I'm operating in the circa 50kpsi range and not around 60 odd which is all I wanted to check.

Many thanks for the help.

In all seriousness you might be interested in playing with charge weights and pressures for VVN140 and VVN150 for that 87gr hornady sp flat base. VV reckon that N150 alters burning rate in this case with this bullet so you have the weird situation of smaller charge weights for a slower burning powder (according to the VV loading manual. I would be very interested to see if Quickload picks this up!

I have Quickload, and although I am an engineer, I am not savy enough to use half the features. I do use their library bullets and then modify the bullet length and weight.

Red Dot yes
Bullseye yes
Unique yes
AA#5 yes
Power Pistol yes
HS-6 yes
Blue Dot yes
2400 yes
3N37 yes
800-X NO
AA#7 yes
N105 yes
Long Shot NO
AA#9 No
STEEL NO
Enforcer yes
N110 yes
H110 yes
LIL'GUN No

XMP5744 No
RL-7 yes
H335 yes
IMR4895 yes
RL-15 yes
Varget yes
H414 = W760
IMR4350 yes
H4831SC yes

Another problem is straight wall pistol cartridges. It assumes the steepest change in pressure with change in OAL. It thinks that 10.5 gr of Power Pistol in 9mm with 124 gr and 1.000" OAL is over 1,000,000 psi, when in reality it does not even peirce my primers.

What it does do well is estimate pressure for bottle necked rifle cartridges. It thinks the pressure is between 57k and 65k psi for loads that I know make my bolt sticky.

I like "Load From A Disk", though mine is the older version 3. Their new version is shipping this month.

Phil

1894,

quickload shows N150 vs N140 for the same charge wt. to give lower velocity. Similarly for the 243 win. using 87g hornady whereas the manual shows N150 gives same velocity at slightly lower charge wt. Since N150 is only about 3% slower than N140, this is probably to close for quickload buring rate modeling to pick up.

Steve505,

Interesting! I never realised N150 was that close.

Does the latest version of Quickload have Retumbo in its powder database?

More and more, I think we're just on our own. New powders come out, new bullets come out, new rounds are introduced, and it seems like no one gives a damn about updating their respective databases for these items. AA#9 has been out for a LONG time and so has XMP5744. There's no excuse for not having them listed in the various databases out there. The same thing for the N500 series, and the same thing for Retumbo which, while it's new, has quickly developed a following and should, therefore, be included in the various software packages' calculations.

So, like I said, we're apparently on our own, left to make educated guesses from what's available in the printed manuals. The old timers didn't even have manuals, so I guess we're lucky.

Russ

Many of you know OKShooter here on the boards. He has a book out called a Handloaders Odessy where he spends much time testing the 30-06 with strain gauges. I FOUND HIS BOOK EXCELLENT.

NOW, I took alot of his info and cross referenced it with Quckload and my own results. Quickload predicted many of his outcomes but certainly NOT ALL. AND, when I looked at his outcomes and matched with some of my velocities etc. with like loads I also found some pretty fair differences.

There are just too many variables to predict an outcome. I think there can be some big inconsistancies in lot to lot powder variations.
All this means if "YOU GO FISHING" near max loads you are bound to get a surprise sooner or later.

One thing Stans book taught me is there are no "magical" powders out there. When you hit 3000fps with a 150, or 2850 fps with a 165, or 2725 fps with a 180 grainer you've hit right around 60,000 psi and that's all there is to it.
(excepting of course some of new "light magnum" loads which are getting mixed reviews every day).

NOT SURE if I made my point but, I'm trying to say that you should cross reference all the data you can and then work up to a sane velocity and quit there. (Even if a manual or quickload tells you it's ok to put in more powder).

I have Accuload II and am very pleased with it especially the precision part, I like the Ballistic tables it will give you all the tables which consist of 10 different tables on your load all at once with out all the hunt and pick, that most other programs have you go through. And these folks will listen to you and try to correct the product in stead of blowing you off. i don't know of a program that is perfect or even claims to be, But this much I do know that if you are going to depend upon a program without a chron-o-graff it better well be a little under presure than over if you want your rifle and life to be around for a while.
Old Timer